Papua New Guinea vs Solomon Islands: Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score
Papua New Guinea
60
in 2013
Solomon Islands
60
in 2013
Papua New Guinea rank
53rd
Solomon Islands rank
53rd
Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score over time
- Papua New Guinea
- Solomon Islands
How they compare
Papua New Guinea currently reports 60 against 60 in Solomon Islands, a difference of 0.
Across all 9 years both countries report, Solomon Islands has been ahead every year.
Papua New Guinea ranks 53rd and Solomon Islands ranks 53rd of 191 countries.
Solomon Islands has averaged higher in every one of the 2 decades both report.
Head to head by decade
| Decade | Papua New Guinea | Solomon Islands | Difference | Ahead |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2000s | 56.67 | 56.67 | 0 | — |
| 2010s | 57.5 | 59.17 | 1.67 | Solomon Islands |
Averages of every year both report within each decade.
Frequently asked questions
- Which has higher protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score, Papua New Guinea or Solomon Islands?
- Papua New Guinea, at 60 against 60 in Solomon Islands as of 2013.
- What is the difference in protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score between Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands?
- 0, with Papua New Guinea ahead.
- How many years of comparable data are there for Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands?
- 9 years are reported by both, from 2005 to 2013.
- How do Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands rank globally for protecting minority investors (db06-14 methodology) - score?
- Papua New Guinea ranks 53rd and Solomon Islands ranks 53rd of 191 countries.
- Where does this data come from?
- The World Bank, published as Protecting minority investors (DB06-14 methodology) - Score. Statizoid refreshes it automatically from the source and publishes the full history for both places.
Individual pages
About this data
The score for protecting minority investors benchmarks economies with respect to the regulatory best practice on the indicator set. The score is indicated on a scale from 0 to 100, where 0 represents the worst regulatory performance and 100 the best regulatory performance, and is computed based on the methodology in the DB06-14 studies.